The Aryan problem

encompasses the Jewish problem

Further to the discussion in the Kriminalgeschichte thread.

Regular visitors of this blog find rather puzzling that Greg Johnson is the most criticised white nationalist in this site. Some might conjecture that I abhor his homosexualist stance. But no: it’s the fact that Johnson subscribes Christian ethics what drives me mad. Let me steal a page from my first essay in Day of Wrath:

______ 卐 ______

Unlike the national socialists and William Pierce, nowadays white advocates are comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal ethics, as I will try to argue in this article [I refer to “Dies Irae,” the first essay of my book Day of Wrath]. Greg Johnson for one, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.

Note that Johnson, overwhelmed by his morals, is not even recognising here that the national socialists were the good guys for Aryan preservation, and the heads of the states he mentions the bad guys.

He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperial-ism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life—criticising Christianity online and delivering pious, traditional homilies at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco—; he really wants to have it both ways. Sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary action but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his so-called “New Right” manifesto, “the only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.” Doesn’t this amount to say that he rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence?

Elsewhere I have quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s manifesto. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West.

______ 卐 ______

I wrote the above in 2012.

Few things annoy white nationalists more than to say that white decline is due to the suicide of the Aryans. Their mantra is that the jews are genociding whites; that it is homicide; whites are altogether innocent of their demise.

Actually it’s suicide, as can be seen even among many nationalists who, like Johnson, reject the concept Umwertung aller Werte. They’re still stuck with the Christian-inspired concept of the sanctity of all human life, brown and jew included: European man’s most deadly spiritual poison.

In addition to the historical arguments that have been presented in this site favouring the suicide hypothesis, we should also consider a sentence from the booklet Eugenics and Race (1959, revised in 1966). If its author, the anthropologist Roger Pearson, makes it until the next month he’ll celebrate his ninety birthday.

Pearson’s views drew on Arthur Keith. His Eugenics and Race summarises Keith’s philosophy thus: „If a nation with a more advanced, more specialised, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide, and destroys the work of thousands of years of biological isolation and natural selection“ (my emphasis).

Miscegenation is what I call the sin against the holy ghost, as it cannot be reversed and does indeed destroys the millennial evolutionary work that produced the Aryan female beauties. Like Jared Taylor, David Duke and many others, Johnson says he wishes non-whites the best. This contrasts dramatically with how Biblical jews exterminated the competing tribes. Non-hatred of the Other led whites to fatal miscegenation in Sumer, India, Central Asia, Egypt and later in the Greco-Roman world.

Had the Aryans of the Ancient World the benefit of hindsight that Pierce developed in Who We Are, they would have imitated their Semitic neighbours. The moral for historically awakened whites, in Pierce’s own words, should be “extermination or expulsion” but never, ever use non-white labour!

In the Modern World what makes ethnic cleansing unthinkable for white nationalists is Christian ethics, which even permeates the secular mind of Johnson et al. See my recent posts about the jewish-Roman wars describing how pre-Christian Europeans dealt with the jews—without moral restraints.

As long as whites fail to transvalue their values back to normal I will be talking about white suicide and that the Aryan problem „encompasses“ the jewish problem. Nevertheless, concurrently to the revaluation of values, to exterminate non-whites the human race, as a whole, must be impeached first. At my Ex Libris page the series Impeachment of Man and Raciology can now be read from the beginning (see also what Charles Darwin said about pro-white exterminationism). Since the Raciology article I posted today is the seventh and last of that series, I am considering the idea of adding excerpts from either Keith or Pearson.

Mondays will be dedicated to scientific racism. Keep tuned.

19 Replies on “The Aryan problem

  1. A friend on Facebook just dropped in my FB page a link to a March article by Max Macro published in Noose from the POV of a WN who really hates the suicide hypothesis.

    Those who hate it are altogether ignorant of what I have been saying in this blog about how, sans jews, whites managed to destroy their race in Latin America and even in the Iberian peninsula—times when the Inquisition targeted crypto-Jews!

    I have iterated the Iberian paradigm over and over in WN forums but never received a rational response. It’s obvious that before the paradigm-threatening nature of the info in this blog they simply resort to ignore me.

    But I’m an obscure blogger.

    Far more serious is that these WNsts who abhor the suicide hypothesis have not read MacDonald properly. In the thread of the Noose article referred to above, Max Macro acknowledges that he did read the third book of MacDonald’s trilogy but not the first two.

    This is an extremely common practice among unserious WNsts. The only way to understand MacDonald’s science is starting right from the beginning (which is why I’m adding excerpts from MacDonald’s first book every Tuesday).

    Finally, in that threaded discussion Max Macro advises a commenter to read what Tanstaafl has written about MacDonald. Macro obviously ignores that Tanstaafl’s views have been thoroughly debunked by none other than Greg Johnson!

  2. I agree with your POV. I really don’t care about ANY member of ANY other Race, Non-Whites do not belong in our world. I’d be delighted to get all of them off MY WHITE PLANET. I think the „I wish other Race well“ BS is simply Pro Forma Piety, in order to not Spook the Normies.

  3. Now, the smartest of the Whites proclaim 14/88, that is, the chant for having White children. Whereas in the 1920s, relatively healthy American Whites were sterilized because they were poor (see Carrie Buck). Swedish immigrants to the US were not considered White initially (as per Rudolph Vecoli).

    Wouldn’t those be counted as sins in your book as well, Cesar? Even Germans only sterilized mentally or genetically ill. And Himmler built facilities for single women to bear children in (despite the social stigma).

    I’d say, Anglo-Saxons have always been disgustingly hateful towards their own people (see hostile architecture). It’s just so happened that racism became popular for a brief time, but then it changed, and can you blame the general will-less populace for it?

    Ah, I didn’t know where I was going with it. I don’t deny the suicidal tendencies of Christians. But it will always amaze me how from those stark capitalist eugenics, from the racial science, from the grandiose visions of the future we have come towards this wreckage of a world where Slavs resemble White people the most.

  4. The Christian talk about the „sanctity of human life“ is what Savitri Devi termed the superstition of „man“: the idea that humans are a sacred species with immortal souls while all other forms of life are non-sacred and there for humanity’s exploitation. Its roots lie in the Jewish Torah, in the Book of Genesis where Man is described as „made in God’s image“ (how predictable!) while all other creatures are not. It is egalitarian as it does not recognize racial distinctions and views every human soul as „equal in the eyes of the Lord“.

    It is a lie that human life is sacred while animal life is not. In Nature no lives are sacred, death and killing runs throughout the Order of Nature as a permanent part of it. One of the primary values that has to be transvaluated is the Christian outlook on killing. The Christian commandment „Thou shalt not kill“ must be seen for the nonsense it is and replaced with an outlook that views killing as necessary and even holy. Killing is an integral part of Nature. If animals adopted the philosophy of „Thou shalt not kill“ 99% of all species would starve to death and become extinct. And it is the same with Man. Mankind has always practiced killling whether humans or animals and it is time to adopt an outlook that honestly states that killing is necessary.

    While Man may talk a lot about peace, war will remain the order of the day because Man has a strong instinct to kill his so-called ‚fellow man‘. As Pete Helmkamp said „the glad stirrings of genocide lurk in the heart of every man“. This is getting into an area that Christianity has termed evil but remember what Nietzsche said „Thus the greatest evil belongs to the greatest good: but this is the creative good“ and that humanity would view the Superman as the devil.

    1. IMHO whites can, after genociding all non-whites (including jews) and exterminate quite a few monstrous animals (the subject-matter of my tenth and last book in Spanish where I introduce the concept of “the 4 words”), go back to their fairness and altruistic morals. It’s only through a century or two, while the job is being done, that we must behave as bloodthirsty Himmlers.

      Presently out-group love of humans is not only suicidal: it’s inherently immoral as I try to show in the only book of my ten-book series that has been translated to English.

      1. While Nietzsche envisioned an Ubermensch who had rejected Christian morality completely, he couldn’t envision the extermination of all non-whites. Niether could Hitler. It is only since after WWII with the development of our race’s technology and weapons that such an idea can be glimpsed. Savitri Devi wrote about a future Destroyer who would eliminate billions of non-whites but Pierce carried the thinking to its logical conclusion with the genocide of ALL non-whites.

        It is a huge task but a worthy mission for our race. One could say it is our destiny.

      2. After Whites have made our planet into as much as a paradise as it can become, the next step is the conquest of space. Maybe we will eventually encounter alien species out in the Universe that we will enter into struggle with. The ultimate goal I guess is the Aryan Overman as Conqueror of the Universe.

      3. In a few passages of the last pages of my forthcoming book, Los errores de Dios, the possibility is alluded that if whites pass the Earth test by becoming psychogenically overmen (cf. Savitri’s Impeachment), then they’ll earn the right to exterminate evil species around in the galaxy.

      4. >Savitri Devi wrote about a future Destroyer who would eliminate billions of non-whites

        I haven’t heard of this. Have a source?

      5. Yes, Chapter 13 of The Lightning and the Sun (called The Struggle For Truth) where Savitri Devi writes „the practical aim of National Socialism as such was to regenerate the German people — the most conscious among the Aryans of the West — radically, and to organise them, in all walks of life, so as to create out of them the only dam capable of withstanding and thrusting back the threatening tide of inferior humanity, whose rise is, in this as in every Time-cycle, the increasingly tragic sign of an advanced stage of the Dark Age; capable of thrusting it back and of carrying, beyond its defeat, (and its destruction, at the very end of the Age of Gloom) the treasure of god-like life into the glory of the new Beginning.“

        Although it could be argued Devi didn’t speak of the genocide of billions of non-whites it becomes clearer what she meant by inferior humanity’s destruction from this passage of Chapter 11 (called Incurable Decadence) of Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman. She writes „There is, in the downfall of the Third German Reich, in the horror of the last days of the Führer and his final faithful followers in the Chancellery Bunker, under the blazing inferno which Berlin had become, a grandeur worthy of the tragedies of Aeschylus or the Wagnerian Tetralogy. The combat without hope and weakness of the superhuman hero against inflexible Destiny—his destiny, and the world’s—replayed itself there, undoubtedly for the last time. The next time, it will be neither giants nor demigods, but wretched dwarves who will undergo the inevitable destruction: billions of dwarves, banal in their ugliness, without character, who will disappear before the Avenger like an anthill destroyed by a lava flow.“

        The ‚billions of dwarves‘ clearly refers to non-whites (including Jews) not Aryans as even if the so-called Avenger does kill Aryans there are not a billion Aryans in existence today. In another part of The Lightning and the Sun Devi said Whites were the only section of mankind worth saving. She definitely did not have too high an opinion of most non-Aryans.

      6. „exterminate quite a few monstrous animals“
        I remember encountering such ideas in Jules Verne’s works where Captain Nemo was exterminating sperm whales (1870).

        „Then it was to procure fresh meat for my crew. Here it would be killing for killing’s sake. I know that is a privilege reserved for man, but I do not approve of such murderous pastime. In destroying the southern whale (like the Greenland whale, an inoffensive creature), your traders do a culpable action, Master Land. They have already depopulated the whole of Baffin’s Bay, and are annihilating a class of useful animals. Leave the unfortunate cetacea alone. They have plenty of natural enemies—cachalots, swordfish, and sawfish—without you troubling them.“

        „Those are cachalots—terrible animals, which I have met in troops of two or three hundred. As to those, they are cruel, mischievous creatures; they would be right in exterminating them.“

    2. >The Christian commandment “Thou shalt not kill”

      I’ll point out that the word used in its earliest language referred to what would be called homicide. Not just „killing.“

      1. Yes but it should also be noted that the Jews deceived IIRC Luther when he or another translator of the OT asked the rabbis the exact meaning of a Hebrew word in some commandments. „Love your fellow man“ is alien in Judaism, the original text really meant love your fellow kikes, etc.

  5. The question to whether genocide and conquest should be supported can be found just by reading what Hitler said.

    Now, did Hitler ever advocate the two? Even if it was only in that he acknowledged it as inevitable?

    1. Hitler did acknowledge in Mein Kampf that if National Socialism was allowed to take course that the best of humanity (by which he means the Aryan) would achieve possession of the earth.

      Hitler also advocated the conquest of Russia and her border states in Mein Kampf. He writes of an alliance between Germany, Fascist Italy and Britain that will fight Communism in Russia.

      As to reading what Hilter said to find out whether genocide and conquest should be supported, I can’t speak for Cesar but I am not a blind follower of Hitler. Even if Hitler didn’t advocate genocide and conquest (and he did advocate conquest) then I would still advocate them according to my own morality. Genocide and conquest are permanent fixtures of human history. All races have engaged in them.

      1. Hitler was only a guiding Star. Nowadays we should take the 4 and the 14 words to their ultimate consequences: the extermination of the neanderthals and of quite a few „fucking animals“ on mother earth and (if possible) around the galaxy.